If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Small Cell Studies

>>QUOTE=Solomon Parker.. So it's not that "SC proponents" claim it wasn't done correctly, it's that somebody's missing the mark on what 'correctly' is. And since the studies 'prove' what most already believe, this seems to be overlooked.<<

What are you talking about? All the criticism of the university studies have been that the experiments weren't done correctly, for long enough, or some other factor such as foundation positioning wasn't correct. All I'm saying is then...someone...do it correctly.

>>You mean 'when is someone going to do a small study that is done as nature requires?' The only thing natural selection cares about is selection.<<

No, I'm not saying that...you are. I'm saying do an experiment that shows that any benefit is from cell size..

>>Meanwhile, I have seen Mr. Bush's operation and it is exactly as he suggests,...I'm not sure if some of the visitors to this forum think we're just making it up or what. But for whatever reason it is working, it isworking.<<

Well, I too have seen Michael's bees. I'm not denying his success. I'm saying anything about Michael or his beekeeping methods. Both of which are top shelf. I'm only asking that someone prove his success is because of cell size and not...as you bring up...less virulent varroa mites, or management. The fact that there were plenty of dead varroa on his bottom boards makes me think his success is more about less virulent varroa and not about cell size.

Re: Small Cell Studies

When a sentence begins with "So" that means it's reliant on a previous point. It cannot be cherry picked from the paragraph.

Originally Posted by Michael Palmer

I'm saying do an experiment that shows that any benefit is from cell size..

I'll say it again, I would love to, but I don't have the resources, and if I did with my limited resources, it would be criticized as not being statistically valid. You can't demand someone do something to prove you wrong and actually expect it to happen unless you provide the means.

Originally Posted by Michael Palmer

I'm only asking that someone prove his success is because of cell size and not...as you bring up...less virulent varroa mites, or management. The fact that there were plenty of dead varroa on his bottom boards makes me think his success is more about less virulent varroa and not about cell size.

Ultimately cell size cannot be completely separated in the equation in my view. If I did a test, there would be no mite counts because they are irrelevant. Survival is the only metric. The graph would be "Colony Survival vs. Cell Size".

The whole purpose to this thread was to address the accusation that small cell beekeepers are ignoring the 'scientific' studies that have been done. We're not. They are valid for whatever tiny set of specifications for which they were designed, but not for year 'round beekeeping in real life situations. IF small cell comb increases the number of varroa, then our hives are for some reason able to survive higher numbers of varroa, and how is that to be explained?

And if it is about less-virulent varroa, then the truth is that conventional beekeepers are banking more deadly varroa and keeping them around to the continual detriment of all of beekeeping and to the profit of chemical companies. If all bees were kept treatment-free, then deadly varroa would be like AFB, that one or two percent of hives that have to be destroyed every year only the destruction would be automatic and the equipment would not be destroyed as well. The idea that survival is due to less-virulent varroa still inexorably leads to the conclusion that all bees need to be kept without treatments.

Re: Small Cell Studies

The studies that have been done were done by professionals whose job it is to design andperform such studies. If their claims are so poorly supported by the work that amatures can easily poke holes in them then they did a poor job.
Id be happy to discuss these studies ...especially the seeley study with anyone that would like to.....but such a discussion requires that one read the studies criticly first.
Mike, I understand your point....but the issue is the quality of the published studies, and how well the titles/claims are supported by the data. A bad paper is bad on its own merrits.

Re: Small Cell Studies

Dean:

Sometimes, not only do studies test for the wrong hypotheses, they also reach the wrong conclusions for reasons that are more politics than science. That's how I found the proxy that can work for mite virulence and other pathogens as well.

The authors withheld the real findings, and substituted plausible ones, because they would conflict with another major project.

Re: Small Cell Studies

But there are large cell beekeepers out there too, who haven't treated in years.

Yes, I know at least one of them. So maybe small/natural cell helps, maybe it doesn't, we don't have a good study to tell.

Here's another hypothesis, if larger cell hives can survive, and we know that they do, then why are we still stuck on the idea that it's the weak mites? What portion of it is hygienic behavior (genetics)? Can any combination of the factors kill off even the virulent mites or are they indestructible? If these super-mites are unbeatable with any combination of factors, hygienics, small cell, or other unrecognized factors, how are treatment-free operations still able to soldier on all these years?

Re: Small Cell Studies

It's a site where environmental RNAs, that the worker bees encounter, are integrated into the Honeybee genome. In effect, it serves as a temporary archive of pathogens.

It's a well known R2 retrotransposon insertion site in the 28srDNA of arthropods.

The famous EST QW33, from 'Changes in transcript abundance relating to colony collapse disorder in honey bees (Apis mellifera)', contains a well known R2 insertion site. They (the authors) failed to report the increased QW33 activity in CCD and virus/nosema infected bees as increased retrotransposition activity at this site. That would have made RNAi unsuitable for treating CCD.

If you want a proxy for mite virulence, that's where you would want to look.

Re: Small Cell Studies

Originally Posted by Solomon Parker

What portion of it is hygienic behavior (genetics)?

I'm most skeptical about this element of the equation, if it's part of it. I know Dee has placed 1/3 of her success on breeding, but I have never put any effort into this. I use whatever I get and have not noticed a change in effectiveness. I know Dennis has used a wide variety of commercial queens as well. i think something else is going on.

Re: Small Cell Studies

I thought quite a while about how to set up a small cell vs large cell study. There are complexities that are hard to manage. Here are some thoughts on a way to do the job with a very high level of confidence.

1. Set up a total of 240 colonies split into 6 different apiaries. 120 colonies would be on small cell and 120 on large cell. All of the colonies in an apiary should be one cell size to minimize effects caused by varroa moving via drifting bees from overwhelmed colonies to nearby colonies. (reasoning, 240 colonies is enough to be statistically significant)
2. Get queens from three different sources, 80 Italians from a commercial queen breeder, 80 Carniolans from a commercial queen breeder, 80 queens from known long term survivor stock that is on small cell. Divide the queens so that an entire yard is all the same type. (reasoning, this will allow genetic variables to be calculated)
3. Setting up the colonies will be a pain, you MUST have a source of small cell bees to get them to draw out small cell foundation. Establish packages in all 240 colonies using commercial package bees for the large cell and using small cell bees for the small cell colonies. (reasoning, this will get consistent brood comb built to measure the effects)
4. Run the colonies for a minimum of 3 years capturing weekly mite counts. This infers a modified bottom board that allows mite counts. Do not treat with any miticides at all. (reasoning, the varroa cycle is arguably 3 years so you have to keep records for 3 years. The only way to ensure valid results is to use no treatments.)
5. As colonies die out, replace them with walk away splits so that the genetics in a given yard remain pretty much the same. (reasoning, if there are genetic effects, you have to maintain consistent genetics to differentiate from cell size effects)
6. Maintain detailed colony records on all 240 colonies so that anova can be calculated on relevant variables. This includes recording buildup, swarming, queen replacement, honey production, etc. (reasoning, There are 3 variables to resolve, cell size, genetics, and mite virulence. With enough colonies in the test and with detailed records on all of them, some simple math will show which are operative in long term survival)

There would be quite a bit more detail involved, but this should be a start.